| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rowe: I hoped that I had made it clear that, by putting properties on the market and seeing just how much less they fetched than would have been their valuation otherwise, we had met the standard of objectivity that the Minister has just stated.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend's suggestion and those made in the debate by other hon. Members will be looked at by the working party. I have said that the terms of reference are wide, and we shall wish to consider all relevant experience and suggestions, including, of course, overseas experience.
The new clause ignores the principles under which existing arrangements have operated. Some hon. Members may say, "That is well and good, but we think that the existing arrangements are inadequate." However, such fundamental changes should not be made just in respect of a specific project, but made only after careful review and as the basis for making changes that would apply to all similar projects.
We recognise the legitimate concern about the wider effects of blight--so-called perceived or generalised blight--which may affect property values even where there is no direct effect on the property, so existing compensation provisions may therefore not apply. That concern was raised by the Select Committee, which heard a great deal of evidence on a wide variety of concerns related to the Bill. Many of the matters that were raised essentially had to do with the provisions in general law rather than those in the Bill. The Committee concluded that in all such cases the existing national rules should apply. Even in the case of property compensation, the Committee concluded that existing arrangements were inadequate and called for a national review rather than special treatment for the project. In response, we set up the interdepartmental review of blight which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 18 March, Official Report, column 9.
New clause 1 recognises that any scheme now instigated may be premature, in that subsection (5) provides for the arrangements to be repealed in the light of the recommendations following the review.
The new clause raises practical issues and difficulties. If we were to agree to such a radical extension of the statutory blight concept, it would raise difficult issues about the definition of "unblighted value" and on the means of disaggregating the various factors that may have reduced the property's value, given that "perceived blight" can be widespread and is a thoroughly subjective, although pernicious, concept. By definition, there would be no identifiable or measurable physical effects.
Furthermore, the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposes might increase blight if it encouraged people to sell at a loss because they knew that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be obliged to pay the difference between unblighted market value and any amount realised.
I am not rejecting out of hand the notion of a compensation rather than a purchase basis. As my hon. Friend alluded, in my discussions with him, I have acknowledged that that might be a sensible approach, but, today, I am not prepared to say that I have reached that conclusion. These important matters must be considered carefully in the review.
Mr. Allen:
Will the Minister consider asking the interdepartmental working group to consider also non-monetary compensation so that, for example, the homes for the frail elderly on the Euston side of St. Pancras might have to be rebuilt rather than an exchange of money taking place?
Mr. Watts:
The working party can consider all suggestions made during this important debate.
There is a danger that the effects of a scheme such as the one that my hon. Friend suggests could lead to snowballing blight. There could be a perverse effect. If the new clause were added to the Bill, his scheme would be part of the Act and if the new clause caused a blighting effect on other property, the operation of the scheme under the Act would be compensatable under the new clause's powers.
I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about blight caused by earlier routes and proposals. I understand that his new clause would not cover that and that it cannot be made to do so within the scope of the Bill, so I am not sure that the new clause would achieve all that I know that he wants it to achieve on behalf of his constituents.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept what I have said about the inadvisability of making piecemeal changes to the compensation code on blight before the outcome of the review, specifically set up, at the Select Committee's request, to consider that subject, but the important issue that remains is how any changes that are made as a result of the review would be applied to people affected by the project.
The House will know that, for obvious reasons, it is not the usual practice of Governments to give any prior commitment in respect of policy reviews that have yet to be completed and in, Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would consider sympathetically how the review's outcome could be applied.
I have given further thought to that. I take the point made in the debate that it would be perverse if a review that led to changes in the compensation code--a review prompted by the blight problems caused by the project--and the outcome of its recommendations were such that people affected by the project could not benefit from the review. Therefore, I am prepared to go further and to give a clear undertaking that any changes introduced to the compensation code as a result of the review will be given effect in respect of blight arising from the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the new clause.
Mr. Rowe:
Is it in order for hon. Members and members of public to submit evidence to the working group and, if so, how do we do it?
Mr. Watts:
Certainly. A total of 130 organisations, professional and otherwise, have been invited specifically to submit their views, but the views of hon. Members and of members of the public, submitted in writing to the Department of the Environment, would be most welcome.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I am sure that the House will be encouraged to hear what the Minister said to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). We are grateful for that and for the additional information. This may not have been put to the Minister in these terms and therefore I will not expect an immediate reply. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised a similar matter. Will the Minister consider whether people affected simultaneously, not by channel tunnel works, but by the same issue and who have raised those effects in parallel--although they do not come under this specific legislation primarily--could also be considered? We are looking at a date start for a new scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, equitably, all people affected in similar ways by similar legislated-for proposals might be considered and reply in due course, as soon as he has had a chance to examine the matter.
Mr. Watts:
I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says and reply to him in due course. That is one of the factors that can be taken into account in the review.
Mr. Rowe:
I have been in this place long enough to know that it is frequently wise to accept half a loaf rather than no bread at all and, given that we are shortly to send the Bill to another bakery, I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend the Minister's concession with considerable gratitude and pleasure. I wish that he had been able to go much further, but I understand the constraints under which he is operating and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
Mr. Timms:
May I briefly ask the Minister a question that arises from the amendment and that has been raised with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), dealing with the terms on which payments will be made to London and Continental Railways?
Suggestions have been made in the press--I have with me a copy of the New Civil Engineer from 28 March--that London and Continental Railways will not have to start work on building the channel tunnel rail link until European Passenger Services is profitable, which will clearly give London and Continental Railways, as the owner of EPS, the ability to borrow against the Eurostar revenue stream. Is that part of the agreement between the Government and London and Continental Railways?
Amendments made: No. 1, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'and'.
No. 2, in page 8, line 10, at end insert
',and
(c) any station constructed for the purposes of the rail link at Stratford, in the London borough of Newham.'.--[Mr. Watts.]
Amendment made: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 29 to 33.--[Mr. Watts.]
Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 16, line 34, leave out
'enter into an agreement with'
and insert 'make payments to'.--[Mr. Watts.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |